the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It will just have to be leaked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Bollox. This stuff is called business. No company in their right mind sends out communications each time they are involved in a legal dispute. Utter tosh, and you know it. Also, considering the basis of the court action is leaking information, I would suggest it's not prudent to be seen talking to the press at all times 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Worth noting that our site has been asked by Puma to help promote the new kit which we've now politely declined. That's a pity but there's no way we can ask any Rangers fan to buy items that the club apparently benefits from less from than other parties. And that would most likely have cost you a pretty penny; so kudos and hats off to you guys for putting your money (or lack of, now) where your mouth is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Before anyone gives Scrote any more clicks ... and I hope people at Ibrox take note of this "journos" behaviour ... Rangers: Mike Ashley wins injunction against Glasgow club By Chris McLaughlin BBC Sport Mike Ashley's Sports Direct has won a court injunction against Rangers disclosing confidential information about its retail deal with the club. It prevents Rangers revealing details of their contract to an extraordinary meeting of the Championship club called by Ashley and being held on Friday. The Newcastle United owner and Rangers shareholder asked for the EGM to force the club to pay back a £5m loan. Sports Direct was also awarded costs of £20,000 at the Royal Courts of Justice. The company had asked the Chancery Division of the High Court in London for its deal with Rangers to remain private. The application heard evidence from lawyers representing both sides but found in Sports Direct's favour and ordered Rangers to pay legal costs. Sports Direct currently controls around 75% of Rangers' retail operations, but the club say they want to challenge those contracts at the EGM. The club have also asked shareholders to vote against resolutions put forward by Ashley's company, which wants Rangers to repay a £5m loan and explain the decisions that led to the club being delisted from the AIM stock exchange. Ashley said on Wednesday that repaying the loan would allow Rangers to restore some of their retail income. BBCeltland 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 What behavior ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govan_derriere 3 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Remind me, exactly who was in charge of Rangers in January. @jamesdoleman: Judge notes RFC signed confidentiality agreement in January 2015 2015 confidentiality agreement between RFC and SD covered "present and future agreements" judge notes Surely this action should be challenged? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Remind me, exactly who was in charge of Rangers in January. @jamesdoleman: Judge notes RFC signed confidentiality agreement in January 2015 2015 confidentiality agreement between RFC and SD covered "present and future agreements" judge notes Surely this action should be challenged? Mike... 'likes to be on both sides of the negotiating table'... Ashley The 'Geordie Treatment Room V', the clauses and (lack of) medical examination allied to the state the players were in is another example. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Generally not, as then nothing would ever be kept confidential. Shareholders have certain rights detailed in the Companies Act but that would generally not include commercially sensitive information. So what are our board playing at then by threatening to reveal this information at the EGM? It galls me to say it but it sounds like Sports Direct are right in this instance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 So what are our board playing at then by threatening to reveal this information at the EGM? It galls me to say it but it sounds like Sports Direct are right in this instance. Yeah, that's why the won in court, although it depends what level of information Rangers were planning to divulge. However, it's obviously a lot more emotive than that and all that has happened is that the support will become even more entrenched and SD's income will fall. It has to be in SD's best interests to renegotiate. Nobody should buy a Rangers strip. It's easy for me to say that as I wouldn't be buying one anyway but we should stay strong and send a message. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 So what are our board playing at then by threatening to reveal this information at the EGM? It galls me to say it but it sounds like Sports Direct are right in this instance. I assume board felt informing shareholders of one or two relevant facts would help in their decision-making process without compromising the integrity of the whole deal. Judge decided otherwise. As posted earlier, I doubt it will cause much different to the final vote. Indeed, as some have suggested on social media, the Streisand effect is perhaps more likely now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.